The National Center for Family & Marriage Research (NCFMR) at Bowling Green State University has crunched the numbers on the latest remarriage stats:

Men are more likely to remarry than women, and this difference grows dramatically with age. Note that only 2 out of every one thousand divorcées 65 and over remarried in 2010.

I wish they would have broken the under 45 category out a bit since there is a big difference between the prospects of a divorcée in her 20s and one in her late 30s or early 40s. However, I’m guessing the sample sizes didn’t permit this since women under 45 represent just 28% of all current divorcées:

Combining the information from the two charts above, 52% of existing divorcées have a 19 in 1,000 chance of remarrying in any given year, while another 20% have a shockingly low 2 per 1,000 annual chance of remarriage. Only 28% of existing divorcées have the much rosier annual chance of 73 per 1,000, even though the rosy metric is the one most frequently touted. Interestingly even the youngest category of existing divorcées is highly skewed to the oldest ages, with 64% of them over 35:

The crop of existing divorcées is skewed older in part because younger divorcées are much more likely to remarry and (temporarily at least) leave the data set. Here is the age breakdown of women who divorced during 2009, the latest year I could find data for:

While this is younger than the current divorcée population it still skews strongly to older women; only a third are under 35. Any way you slice it this is bad news for aspiring divorcées, as remarriage is an essential part of having it all and the longer women delay their first marriage the older they will be when they later divorce and look to remarry. With the median age of first marriage for women at 26.5 and the median length of first marriages ending in divorce at 11 years this means the bulk of tomorrow’s divorcées will be divorcing even closer to (if not in) middle age. Even the early birds will end up competing with the expanding group of never marrieds, a group which is already finding it extremely difficult to marry in their 30s.

Not only is remarriage essential for class reasons, but women who divorce very often end up incredibly alone later in life if they don’t remarry. The 2004 AARP study of men and women who divorced primarily in their 40s (72%) and early 50s (15%) found that for women remarriage was not only much harder, but the consequences of not remarrying were much worse for women (emphasis mine):

Almost 9 in 10 men (87%) dated after their divorce, compared to 8 in 10 women (79%)… Among those who dated after the divorce, more than half of men (54%) but fewer women remarried (39%). (Page 39)

Many women, especially those who have not remarried (69%), do not touch or hug at all sexually. An even larger majority of women who have not remarried do not engage in sexual intercourse (77% saying not at all), in comparison with about half of men (49%) who have not remarried. (Page 6)

It is even worse than the 2004 AARP study found however, because it was looking at the outcomes of divorces in the past and remarriage rates have been dropping for the last 50 years:

Edit Oct 6 2014: Updated the remarriage over time chart to one showing the correct time scale.

Of the divorced people I know, the men dated sooner and remarried sooner (albeit to somewhat lower SMV women than those they divorced). Probably half of the divorced women never remarried at all. I know one who divorced around age 30 and has remained unmarried for 35 years.

It probably bears repeating:

1. The older a woman is at the age of divorce, the lesser her chance of remarrying.
2. Many of these women seem to be divorcing between ages 35 and 54. This has got to be the worst time for a woman to divorce if she wants to remarry. For the average woman this is between, oh, 3 and 10 years AFTER she’s hit The Wall. Her SMV is in freefall.
3. Men who divorce over age 45 remarry at twice the rate women do; but this gap between men and women is narrowing. The gap was 54 points in 1960; 37 points in 1990 and only 17 points in 2010. Importantly, remarriage rates for men are falling faster than remarriage rates for women.

If you’re looking for evidence of a marriage strike, or at least a remarriage strike, this might support that conclusion. It is at least one piece of the puzzle. Could be many things: Poor economy; poor quality of women available for remarriage; women refusing to remarry; men simply refusing to remarry in the current legal and cultural environment.

Kids often go in different directions from their parents. Perhaps those old and lonely divorcees have daughters and granddaughters who see where they’re at and don’t want to go there. There’s a bit of noise at the margins these days. Have to wait to see if it becomes more than that.

As age cohorts become older, average lifespans mean that there are more women than men. It’s a buyer’s market for men. Add to this that, especially when taking into account reproductive viability, men like to date younger women, and the market becomes even more skewed.

Women are able to divorce and remain unmarried because of a) state support, and b) a socialist economy. But I repeat myself. This will end someday, the only question is when necessity will once again become a virtue.

“I have begun to wonder: is a second marriage genuinely worthwhile? Or should couples be advised against second marriages, partly because of the increased probability of divorce, but also because of the potentially serious fallout if the marriage does fail?

“Divorce can often require the wealthier party to make provision for the poorer party, for the rest of that person’s life. This can mean provision of a mortgage-free home and maintenance or a lump sum, sufficient to last a lifetime.

“In many cases, a second marriage has seemed to me, an objective bystander to be an almost bizarre, and clearly avoidable, mistake.

“Could it be that older couples, brought up to believe that marriage is the “gold standard”, are now discovering (again) that it isn’t?

“I’m overwhelmingly coming to the decision: Don’t give in to temptation, no matter how tempting, don’t get married again.”

This site was linked in one of your previous posts. It does a nice job breaking down just how few college educated, white collar males are out there in the 25-34 age bracket. It was a comment left on the post of some young woman complaining about how she and her special friends cannot find the “right” guy to marry.

But when I first read it I couldn’t help but think how this very same scarcity would affect older divorcees even more. The eligible men in the forty five and older ranks are pretty much comprised of the never married and divorced. And a fair number of those divorced men have vowed to never marry again. The never married have basically stated their life choice. And how many of these divorced men who want to remarry make so much money that their lifestyle isn’t drastically affected by alimony/child support?

Couple this with the fact that the majority of these older ladies initiated their divorces expecting a rosier future full of exciting men and they won’t accept anything except the best!

I am not surprised that remarriage rates for these older ladies is so low.

I’ve thought for quite a while that the relationship between hostile spinsters and cats has been noticed for thousands of years. Why else would cats be witches’ familiars?

I don’t particularly like cats but it’s good they exist. The last two middle-aged single women I met both doted on their cats were both crazy and on psychiatric medication. I think the cats are substitutes for the babies they never had.

Your charts also point out to Christian men that dating beyond a certain age means increasingly greater chances of committing adultery: dating is not only serial fornication; but in one’s late twenties and early thirties, it becomes adultery as well.

The link to remarriage.com shows that overall (i.e. combining all ages), 75% of women remarry within 10 years of their divorce. They list 68% of women over 25 as remarrying. So there still seems to be an awfully good chance of remarriage.

The link to remarriage.com shows that overall (i.e. combining all ages), 75% of women remarry within 10 years of their divorce. They list 68% of women over 25 as remarrying. So there still seems to be an awfully good chance of remarriage.

Even here this is misleading because when they are referring to “women over 25” they are referencing a study which only interviewed women who were age 15-44 at the time of the study (1995). So while the figure is grossly out of date, it also at best represents women 25-45, but the website leaves this out. I described the data set they are referring to a few years ago in this post. However, it is true that for young divorcées the odds of remarrying are very high. But the rosy figure for younger women is taken as applying to all divorcées, and as I’ve shown it simply doesn’t apply to the vast majority of existing divorcées. For women currently divorcing, the age distribution is a bit younger but it still doesn’t leave much of a chance before their window closes rather quickly. Unfortunately the data isn’t broken out in a way to help us identify the exact change point, but we know that for women in general mid to late 30s is a threshold that greatly changes their marriage prospects. The risk for aspiring divorcées is they will see the rosy stats and think they have it made, when in reality they have a short window to find an old short bald dude who needs a visa and march him down the aisle to complete their personal Eat Pray Love mission.

This last part is something else the data doesn’t and can’t tell us. Reentering the dating/marriage market when older with a history of divorce, and likely as a single mother, and expecting better results than she obtained when young and baggage free is pure insanity. It is a testament to how important remarriage is to the script that those who do remarry are willing to do so given their greatly reduced options.

If you’re looking for evidence of a marriage strike, or at least a remarriage strike, this might support that conclusion. It is at least one piece of the puzzle. Could be many things: Poor economy; poor quality of women available for remarriage; women refusing to remarry; men simply refusing to remarry in the current legal and cultural environment.

Yes, I certainly do see this as evidence of a remarriage strike by men. When women are in the SMP power position it makes sense to presume that they are driving the changes in the SMP. So when young women tell us they want to delay marriage while the world is their oyster, I tend to believe them. But here the tables have turned. Divorced men are now in the SMP power position, and the data from OK Cupid and the AARP study among others confirm this. Those divorced men who don’t remarry are still getting sex. The ones who do remarry are able to pretty much demand their own price. Look at Elizabeth Gilbert’s second husband “Felipe”. He is nearly sixty, bald, and short and he married an early 40s woman because he needed a visa. With this in mind and given the unfair nature of marriage laws to men, when men’s interest in remarriage declines I interpret this as a remarriage strike. For women given all of the data showing that they greatly value marriage later in life, when their remarriage rates decline I interpret this as something being imposed on them.

Oh but it gets worse… thread before last, a link to an article at the woman’s magazine side of yahoo (Shine) showed that women get pickier the older they get – which is yet another reason for a guy going younger.

This is why feminism can be viewed as a result of intrasexual competition between women over male resources. Us guys are sort of caught in the crossfire of older women trying to destroy the natural advantage younger women briefly have.

And they’ve largely succeeded. The last gasps of the current system, based on the course we seem to be on, will involve angry grannies fighting trashy and/or divorced single moms over the final crumbs.

…by “pickier”, of course, I mean “more demanding”. Or more expensive to have around, if you will.

This is why femi-communism is based on the idea that all men are collectively responsible for the well-being of all women, but no woman is responsible for the well-being of any man. Everything flows in one direction only. Women then base their value/status on how much they can get out of men, on how useless they are to us, on how picky they can proclaim themselves to be.

It does seem like you could interpret a lot of the current spinster-sphere writings as an attempt to muddy the waters and make marriage look less appealing for their younger sisters. A marriage-minded 20-year-old may not compete for the men a 40-year-old divorcee is interested in, but she may grab a 27-year-old guy, and her 27-year-old sister grabs a 38-year-old, and all of sudden the 40-year-old woman is priced completely out of the market.

If the pendulum swings back toward marriage at all from the feminist position of the last generation — as pendulums tend to do — the spinsters are completely screwed. And that’s just based on the numbers, without any (re)marriage strike by men, which will only make the situation worse for them.

It’s hard not to feel a little vindictive pleasure at that. But as a society, I wonder if we can even judge how much we’re going to suffer when our grandmotherly widow class has been replaced with a desperate spinster class. It doesn’t sound pretty.

Cail Corishev says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm
@
“But as a society, I wonder if we can even judge how much we’re going to suffer when our grandmotherly widow class has been replaced with a desperate spinster class. It doesn’t sound pretty”

I’m already seeing this in political activism at the local level. The police community meetings are filled with bitter, angry, spinsters and crones, who demand kill-joy nit-picking laws be passed and strictly enforced.
The Police administrators and local politicians do cater to them…they are loud and they vote!
Look at the current mindless anti gun ranting, mostly angry women demanding knee-jerk, anti- liberty bad law. All emotion, no logic and all threats to freedom.
Very damgerous!

I’m sceptical about the remarriage rates for women, for one there are financial disincentives built into alimony and childcare policy for remarrying.

Effectively what you get are ‘live ins’, divorcees who live with other men while the ex husband foots the bill. There is no incentive for these couples to marry or self recognize as cohabitating, so the census doesn’t pick up on these stats.

The web is littered with stories of ex husbands footing the bill for ex wives living with other men.

It’s interesting that cohabitation laws can get a man on the hook for payments but the same laws cannot get an ex husband off the hook when an ex wife is clearly cohabitating with another man.

Why even bother informing women of these trends? If a woman marries for the intent to divorce and remarry further down the line. She deserves all the pain and misery she gets. More power to them. Women seem quite intent to show just how vain, shallow and impervious to reason they can be, I don’t think anything will stop them now.

{I posted this on the thread below…but I think thats spent. Also: I think Dalrock would do well to make a post about the facts I point to below. The very definition of marriage deserves a more fitting end than what is currently being sold to the American people as “justice”}

I think we do ourselves and our adversaries a real disservice when we concentrate on how the sexual revolution and feminism has corrupted our woman and made marriage untenable for men.

Certainly woman are pack thinkers and did what they were told by society…they became sluts and got jobs; many are still strutting around like this is an accomplishment…looking down on men & never digesting the fact that their true calling was to be good wives and mothers.

I prefer to go deeper myself and back light the way woman and society has devolved while placing the blame were it truly belongs. I write allot about the counterculture left and Frankfurt school Marxism.

Marriage is the true building block of any and all civilizations…great & small. The manosphere is so jaded when it comes to marriage that they have missed the feminists and cultural lefts greatest triumph to date.

They are overthrowing the institution of marriage at the core philosophical level. All things being “equal” woman have all the sexual/reproductive power. Redefining marriage means essentially that men have no valued place in the family, to their own children and in society.

This is the reason marriage as traditionally defined has always been declared a fundamental constitutional right (indeed it is an International Human Right -Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…declares the ” family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society” and defines it traditionally)

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

This quote is from both Loving v Virginia court quoting the precedent of Skinner v. Oklahoma.

This is well established in case law and universally recognized by attorneys on both sides.

As the New York State Supreme Court noted in Hernadez v Robles –

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”

I implore everyone in the manosphere to center their minds on a fundamental right of man, well understood and recognized by all societies for a millennia; is about to be declared either unconstitutional &” irrationally bigoted” or ignored completely and put up for mere majority vote in various states.

This is man & woman’s place in the family…this is the right of the parent to know & be known by his children. This is the feminists greatest coup d’état -allowing them the legal & philosophical power to declare men anathema to the “family” and continue to use the power of the state to marginalize and ignore our fundamental human right to form a family.

Marriage has lost its reason. It’s now like having the right to breath air. Everyone has it and therefore it has no value. I have no will to fight a hugely costly battle against the very sex that I am supposed to marry. It’s obvious that women don’t need or want to marry men and I’m not one to want to oppress them any longer.

Fly little birdies, fly!

There is no such thing as a human right. There are ‘rights’ that a State gives you but they can and will be taken away as soon as that ‘right’ threatens the State. You either fight or die or become a slave, there is no other choice.

You chaps are missing the point. If a woman is marrying so that she can divorce later on, she ain’t worth marrying. These are nothing but slut-tarts. Let them reveal themselves and suffer the consequences of divorce and spinstertude. To my mind, these posts serve as warnings to men, not women.

“I’m already seeing this in political activism at the local level. The police community meetings are filled with bitter, angry, spinsters and crones, who demand kill-joy nit-picking laws be passed and strictly enforced.
The Police administrators and local politicians do cater to them…they are loud and they vote!
Look at the current mindless anti gun ranting, mostly angry women demanding knee-jerk, anti- liberty bad law. All emotion, no logic and all threats to freedom.”

I personally see this shit every day. Doesn’t even have to be an ‘angry old spinster feminist’, I see it often with women near my age – 27 – on facebook all the time. With the Sandy shooting it was the worst. Suddenly instead of just the gun control they had the mentally ill issue touted more than I’ve ever seen before. That people should be entitled to free mental healthcare or we should impose more regulations and restrictions on the freedoms of anyone deemed ‘mentally ill’.

The worst I saw was when an article titled “I am Adam Lanza’s Mother” went viral and blew the fuck up all over my news feed. Typical solipsistic single mother who doesn’t seem to be able to parent her three kids despite the estranged father paying for everything. It didn’t say that in the article, but the subtext was all there. The problem was that she was whining that her kid is actually mentally unstable and needs healthcare that she can’t afford on her own, while she claims that unless we fix her problems, she’ll be the next ‘Adam Lanza’s’ mother. Ridiculous.

While I didn’t make an issue of the single mother part, I reposted the article in my newsfeed and pointed to the signs that she was just a shitty parent. My post blew up with a great discussion about it, with people adamant that I couldn’t judge her as a mom. That kids like this happen, but that (even though the rate is 1%), it obviously HAD to be that and COULDN’T EVER be her shitty parenting. Some people agreed with me, but most jumped down my throat.

Hilariously, someone dug up the woman’s personal blog and showed crazy shit she had blogged about her kids. Also, apparently the woman never expected it to go viral (published in Huff Po and a few other online news), and as soon as it did the conversation suddenly became “protect my children’s privacy” when the stupid cunt posted it on an online news agency without any thought to how it could harm her children’s chances with current/future education, friends, romance, career, etc.

It was a fun exercise for me in how to hold frame and deal with feminists that are all ready to deny the truths of reality in favor for restricting freedoms that are really unrelated to the problem and certainly not going to do anything about it. Posted the whole conversation on my blog (link below), but even without reading that I figured people here would find it relevant and interesting to how these bitter, old, divorced/never married women are affecting even the young generations ways of thinking.

As a new rule for men.
1. Any woman over 22 not married is to be assumed a slut. Game that pussy and use it up. get rid of her by acting like you have fallen in love with her. A sure fire way to be rid slut would be to say these words and you will be free for ever. “don’t you understand I love you? When you do (fill in the blank) it truely hurts my feelings I have for you. To ensure she stays gone wait for the right moment and tell her this “Do you still have your phone? I tried to text you 3 times and you never answered. I was worried about you. Now if needed add ” Who is the guy there? Is he your brother?” Use a manor and voice tone of concern with fear of making her mad. Season all with if she gets mad you will lose the best pussy you ever had. Guaranteed to be a single man after that and no false rape claim.
2. Any woman that is a single mom through divorce or through not having any idea fucking all kind of dudes while single and unmarried will results in getting knocked the hell up or on purpose is onlt good for sex until you get tired of her. If techniques of resingling used in rule one are effective you made a right choice. If those techniques don’t work try this. ” your second duaghter is very beautiful, do you think she would be interested in dating a guy like me?”
That is enough for now. Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood will change personalities over a generation.

njartist49: Christian men… dating is not only serial fornication; but in one’s late twenties and early thirties, it becomes adultery as well.

Pardon the double entendre, but WTF? Plenty of Christians date without fornicating.

As for adultery…. yes, remarriage after divorce is almost always adultery. So don’t date the divorced unless you are *sure* that the divorced party is biblically free to remarry. But even so, the date isn’t adultery, the remarriage is. (Of course dating is a total waste if you can’t marry, so save your money.)

Fascinated, your strawmen and snark grow tiresome. The Taliban and Saudi Arabia are not the only places in history that have kept families together through stigmatizing/penalizing divorce. The U.S. did it in the 19th century. You may see that as “backward,” and you will just have to deal with the fact that many here would disagree with you.

I appreciate getting a glimpse into the perspective here. There is a kernel of truth to a lot of it but much of it strikes me as bizarre and woman hating. Being a jerk is not a gender issue. I realize many men have been screwed over by women but the opposite is also true. You know as much about women think as I do about how men think, apparently.

Obviously many reading here will disagree with me. I have no problem with that.

These are of course American figures: Dalrock says ‘Not only is marriage essential for class reasons but women who divorce often end up incredibly alone in later life if they don’t remarry’. I rather doubt that in the U.K. marriage is essential for class reasons, and indeed here the class which seems keenest on marriage and on remarriage seems to be the lowest class. I wonder if any other Brits here would think that correct? To say that older women end up ‘incredibly alone’ in later life, [that seems to be worst than just ‘alone’ though I am not sure why] is surely a truism, on the basis that the lack of a husband also leads to lack of family, and as people age they tend to hang out more with their family than their friends (kin rather than kith); but we are stoic!

It could just be that women are just not interested but if they are interested they frequently seem interested in younger male specimens (for whom they can only inadequately compete, without a cash incentive) which usually means they will seek out means men called Marco or Fernando or Mohammed. I rather doubt that the empowered young lady telling you that when she has finished college and started her career, that she will marry in her mid-thirties and produce a trophy child at 44 has ever even considered the possibility that by 35 no one will want her – at least those she might also want – and that by 44 she may well have great difficulty conceiving; and that if with a 40% divorce rate she falls prey thereto and then desires to remarry, that her chances of doing so are going to be even less – still the feminist will say that all men are pigs and in any event die younger. Women are however just like that: I recall a discussion I had with a young female colleague on the train one day. She was supremely confident and I suggested to her that she had worked her life out to a fixed plan. She replied that that was indeed the case, at least in pencil; whereas, I told her, all I could say was that I had little idea what I would be up to the week after next. Women may be in for a very nasty shock – how dare nature fail to consult the Feminazi high command!

Opus, you are so right! That is exactly the story older women tell younger women. People thought I was INSANE to get married in my 20s, and I still left it kinda late and ended up having kids in my 30s. My big regret there is that we ran out of time to have a fourth child. Socially, making a husband and children a priority rather than cash or education is seen as straight up treachery against women.

@
Bob Wallace says:
December 23, 2012 at 9:41 am
Every time I see a woman who’s obsessed about “pure” food, who wants to recycle every little thing, and is close to a fanatic about these things, I have found they are always unmarried,

There is a spiritual vacuum in every person; this void is filled with “something”, either true faith, or some “ism”, or fanatic compulsion. The fanatic compulsion can have some merit, like eating healthy, or striving not to pollute the environment…usually the compulsion is harmful, like drugs or promiscuous sex, but the root is the spiritual vacuum.
The reason women are so angry and miserable is they have rebelled against nature and nature’s God.
The reason men make such colossal mistakes with women is they are thinking with the wrong organ, rebelling against nature and nature’s God.

Well, Bob, you don’t have to be a fanatic to want to safeguard your health and the health of your family from pesticides and chemicals. In fact, I would think you would applaud a woman who took such action.

Deep anger does not discriminate based on gender. One only has to read this forum, or some “women’s” formums to see that. There are examples of extreme black and white thinking on both sides and it is not productive.

You forgot to mention that after you have convinced her to dump you by professing your undying love that when she announces she is leaving, have a complete breakdown in front of her “No, Baby, No! I can’t live without you!”

Empower her through your sobbing so she walks away from your sorry ass and never looks back.

Then, have a beer and watch an episode of “The Knife Show” or “River Monsters”.

These are of course American figures: Dalrock says ‘Not only is marriage essential for class reasons but women who divorce often end up incredibly alone in later life if they don’t remarry’. I rather doubt that in the U.K. marriage is essential for class reasons, and indeed here the class which seems keenest on marriage and on remarriage seems to be the lowest class. I wonder if any other Brits here would think that correct?

I’m obviously at a disadvantage when it comes to the issue of class in the UK. However, I would point out that in the manosphere until I presented conclusive data (and perhaps even still) there was a general belief that women in the US couldn’t really value marriage. Their actions to delay marriage and eagerness to divorce are confounding. Yet all three of these are true. I haven’t gone through the full report, but there is some data on marriage in the UK in this report. Note in the appendix that as of the last sample (2004-2007) 84% of women in the UK had married by age 40. This is down from 94% in 1990-1994, but it is still much higher than I would wager most would expect. Just as with the US, this doesn’t mean these women are still married, but given what we know about hypergamy it shows that marriage is still a very important status symbol for women. Anecdotally we also have the steady stream of articles at the Daily Mail by middle age and older women bemoaning failing to marry or failing to remarry.

But even without data on father presence by class in the UK and not knowing the intricacies of class there, I would offer that marriage will become a class marker in the UK even if it isn’t today (without stipulating that it isn’t). Children who grow up without their father in the home are statistically at a large disadvantage to those who do. Many individual children make it through this just fine, but over generations of single mothers this is a disaster.

A distinction needs to be made here: those that claim that western women no longer value marriage are absolutely correct. Women care nothing for marriage as the formal unit of family now that the welfare state enables a “family” that consists of taxpayer handouts and an “exciting” EPL life. What they care for is the oneupmanship value of marriage, to hold their rings over the head of other women; the bling trinket value of marriage. And increasingly, the bling value is bestowed upon them by the sisterhood for having _been_ married as well as being married. Thus I’m skeptical of the claim that these numbers – or any numbers short of “you will starve to death in the cold winter streets” will rein in raging female hypergamy.

Oddly enough, it is my love of economics that brought me into the “Red Pill Hotel”, not a string of failed relationships or several broken hearts (or cleaned out bank accounts). I am Canadian and try to keep a global outlook to the long term health of the world economy, now and several years down the road. Understanding how the socio-economic shifts will take place is vital to me, as it will guide my decision making process.

‘Ok CassMan, this is a topic regarding Marriage, you like economics and you already mentioned you like money, we get it!’. Well, just one second Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a method to my madness. Without going into too much detail, I see a reason for happiness on the horizon in the House of Men.

The Western world is now fully submerged in Debt. The entire World now runs on a debt-based currency system (credit). Because of this, the System now requires constantly increasing credit creation. This is an impossibility as nothing in nature continues in perpetuity. This is why economics does imitate life in so-much that it adheres to the principles of Nature: Balance. This is the same equation Men and Women get grey hair over, trying to find a healthy balance between the sexes.

As credit creation (debt) continues to constantly grow larger due to the lack of political will, the reality of usury (interest) and a populace that for the most part cannot be bothered to educate themselves to care, we find ourselves in an environment where Government grows larger in size than was originally intended. What is more, to validate the need to grow Government further, more areas of the economy that were once autonomous slowly but surely fall under the control of the ever efficient Government control. I will not expunge on why I feel Government should stay out of the economy (for the most part), education, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. Many people my age (early 30’s) were born into a world where Government has always acted in this way. To them, hearing me discuss the concerns of an expanding and by virtue, less efficient Government is an act of rebellion “Well who do you want looking after these areas of society than CassMan???”

The free market – as it always has

And now we come full circle. The State now provides financial support in many areas it never was or was intended to. Never before in human history has there been this level of government sponsored support at every level. Unemployed NA workers can now accumulate more purchasing power from staying at home and collection benefits from the State than if they were to go out, use gas + time and work an eight (8) hour shift. Single parents (Mom’s and Dad’s) also have record breaking financial support system provided by the Government. Please remember that the Government, any Government, does not create jobs or wealth. All they do is re-allocate resources from one area to another, with the justification that moving resources from A to B will have a net benefit. These resources that are moved around are created through the private sector, aka, real labour, real work addressing real issues (for the most part). This socialist system cannot last forever, the simple reality of math dictates this. What you will see is a World where Men’s value will rise exponentially as this current debt-based economic model we are on crumbles. When the Governments are no longer able to bribe their votes out via free resources to various groups, the free money stops. What happens when the free money stops? (This will happen and has happened every single time previously in human history):

– Welfare and Food Stamps disappear

– More State sponsored work (roads, water purification, law enforcement, etc) takes a hit and is reduced. You can see this everywhere in America right now, especially the reduced budgets for law enforcement, they keep cutting back on man-power)

– Less financial support for single parents (Moms). No baby-bonus, no child-support structure intact like is today, no subsidized living options, school rants, nothing. This all stops or becomes a shell of its former self

– Lawlessness increases as every single persons bottom line comes into focus. Credit dries up, people who lived paycheque to paycheque (the ones still working) find they are no longer able to treat water with increased taxes from the State (to help pay off the ever increasing interest on the national debt). Less jobs available, less pay, more stress, and more pressure.

I have witnessed the socio-economic impacts of several dozen advanced societies, dating back to the Roman Empire. In every case, when Men’s value to Women drops to a critically low point, there is a horrendous backlash that often leaves society scarred for a short time. This will continue until it can no longer continue, and that means a driving force loud enough to tone out the never ending cries for more FREE STUFF. The free ride is coming to an end, and this is the best possible news for Men.

When a Women can no longer turn to the State and get free resources for their children simply because she has children, when she no longer has the free resources to pay Men to come into her home and:

– Drywall
– Fix appliances
– Mend the roof / foundation / siding
– Earn enough to run a full household on one income
– Bounce from Man to Man with indefinite social and financial support from the System

Then and ONLY then will you see a return to traditional gender roles. Women will not give this up themselves, regardless of how unhappy their choices make them. These blogs are wonderful resources for Men and Women, to educate themselves and make better decision in the future. The bottom line is that humans need forces much larger than the sum of all of their own parts to enforce drastic change. This change is already under way, and for Men and Women alike who have been gaming this system that often rewards apathy, your days are numbered.

The report from the University of Southampton is very interesting, and indeed suggests that I am mistaken: my explanation is simply – the anecdotal one – that I tend to meet single women, (as I do not and am unlikely to socialise with married women) and thus the women I do meet give (for their age group) a false impression of what their age group actually has done, with endless stuff about not being that sort of girl and rather eating barbed-wire than marrying etc.

One can, I think, also draw the following conclusion: that women who claim that they are going to wait until they are forty before settling down, are perhaps deluding themsleves as to their likelihood of doing just that – of course a lot of female talk like that is just cock-blocking. The women aged forty who are still single are likely to be the odd-balls, the sluts, the fatties, those you should not touch with a barge-pole; the best catches will long have gone, yet as you conceed there has been a jump in the unmarried in just a decade from 6% single at 40 to 16%. We know from other stats that if they do not marry by forty they are unlikely to do so thereafter. In another decade, what? – exponentially nearly 40% – though that seems implausible – it surely cannot continue to rise at near 200% per decade.

I will also add that although marriage is being delayed, as women always like male committment, (because they hate to feel like sluts) I feel certain that their ultimate goal must be marriage – the delay is just the endless romance fantasy. When I was younger, they first acquired a boyfriend; then they agreed at a future time to become engaged (but this was recognised as significant); then they became engaged; and then they finally married. All this in say five years; those women who could not secure any thing beyond a boyfriend were looked down on, as being cheap. Now, it is after a certain amount of experimentation: a boyfriend; cohabitation; then engagement; then marriage, but this is spread out over a longer period – bu the pattern is the same. Of course in both cases they can then cash it in for money and prizes and start all over again, but in the new version that becomes harder because their lowering SMV makes them that much less desirable.

@Cassman, You forgot in your analysis that this kind of move away from marriage as almost universal (apart from the few people who are truly asexual or gay) is that the population drops. We usually work on 2.1 kids per women as replacement — which allows for 5% of women to be infertile or choose not to have kids (men don’t count in this).

The maternal birth ratio is way below that in Western Europe and Asia and is crashing below that in most Islamic countiies. A small population leads to more energy being used merely to survive and less energy going into creating new stuff. And do not start, in a low fertility environment, thinking of total war.

A lower population leads to lower tax take and cuts in welfare. agreed. However, for a significant number of women (generally the ones who can hold the wall from hitting them) an alternative will be prostitution.

Consider Russia for a second. The birth rate has plummeted, drug and alcohol abuse is high, life expectancy low, and… many women are choosing to be whores as a career. What Putin is hoping is that this generation will burn out and the strong foundation of the Rodina (Orthodox Faithful) will remain.

“when men’s interest in remarriage declines I interpret this as a remarriage strike”

My anecdotal evidence thoroughly supports this. Both my uncle [divorced] and my father [widower] are appalled at the low quality of women in general today and steadfastly refuse to remarry. In fact, my uncle does not even talk to his daughters any longer as they went “feral” long ago.

The most amusing part of all this is how my father still feels I’m “wrong” for being a bachelor at my age (I turned 40 this year),as he assumes the quality is much better. My brethren here are free to laugh along with me.

“Well, Bob, you don’t have to be a fanatic to want to safeguard your health and the health of your family from pesticides and chemicals. In fact, I would think you would applaud a woman who took such action.”

I don’t mean merely “safeguarding.” I mean women with no husband and no children and little hope of either. Their purpose in life is to recycle things that shouldn’t be recycled, live in terror of eating an apple they haven’t washed with bleach, and think the purpose of the government is to make the world out of Nerf.

They also think they have “careers,” which almost always consist of make-work jobs holding meetings and drinking coffee while the men (and a few women) do the actual work.

The most amusing part of all this is how my father still feels I’m “wrong” for being a bachelor at my age (I turned 40 this year),as he assumes the quality is much better. My brethren here are free to laugh along with me.

I get the same business from my father, and this despite the fact that he was screwed over in a huge way, not once but twice.

I think for the older generations who came of age in the 1960s and even 1970s, they still look to their mothers in their minds and assume this is the default state of women. They internalize their own bad experiences, interpreting them as personal failures. In fact, women are what they are, and not what our fathers and grandfathers wish they were…

Well done Fitz:
“This is man & woman’s place in the family…this is the right of the parent to know & be known by his children. This is the feminists greatest coup d’état -allowing them the legal & philosophical power to declare men anathema to the “family” and continue to use the power of the state to marginalize and ignore our fundamental human right to form a family.”

JHJ-
“Thus I’m skeptical of the claim that these numbers – or any numbers short of “you will starve to death in the cold winter streets” will rein in raging female hypergamy.”

What we can do is get some equity and justice and the restoration of the Bill of Rights protections under The law.

VAWA must be repealed and defunded.
Lacking that,a total boycott on male services to women.
Deny them sperm and wallet,deny them your utility,or at least charge full rate or more for your services,no more beta orbiter freebees!

@ Norm.
I’m going to ignore the link and talk about the issue around sexuality. Out of control sexual behaviour — a term that Keren Skegg invented, is defined as people thinking they are out of control. From the definative paper on this/a>.

Out of control sexual behavior, also known as compulsive sexual behavior or sexual addiction, has not been studied in a representative sample of the general population. At age 32 years, 940 (93%) of 1,015 members of the birth cohort of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study responded to a series of questions about sexual behavior, administered by computer. We enquired about sexual fantasies, urges or behavior that participants regarded as out of control during the previous year, and defined such experiences as out of control sexual experiences (OCSE). Nearly 13% of men and 7% of women reported OCSE in the past year. Women who reported such experiences were more likely than other women to have reported (elsewhere in the interview) having had high numbers of opposite sex partners, concurrent sexual relationships, or sex with a partner met on the internet, as well as a higher likelihood of same-sex attraction or behavior. Among men reporting OCSE, there was an association with having paid for heterosexual sex and with same-sex attraction and behavior. Few believed that OCSE had interfered with their lives (3.8% of all men and 1.7% of all women in the cohort). Only 0.8% of men and 0.6% of women reported that their actual sexual behavior had interfered with their lives. OCSE were also analyzed in relation to certain personality traits and to childhood sexual abuse (CSA). Some evidence of a link with impulsivity (women only) and negative affectivity was found. CSA was associated with OCSE among men. In conclusion, this population-based study has provided the first empirical estimations of the occurrence of OCSE and its relationship to a range of sexual behaviors in a representative sample

Keren used to be one of my colleagues. She is not in any way associated with Big Pharma: Big Pharma has very little to do with NZ as we have a monopolitistic drug supply system.

Boxer,
I hear you loud and clear. I do believe you are onto something, although I’ll need to think on it further.

Martian Bachelor,
I intend this as a compliment: It’s likely “just you”. As evidenced by the very fact you are already in the minority of men by virtue of your time spent in the manosphere. And, with respect, at your age it means you are in the minority doubly so.

I had an interesting experience last night: I met up with seven other guys some of whom I had not seen for a long while, and so I asked them some questions (which they will have seen as innocuous, but I had my motives) – these guys were all Grammar School educated (bar one) that is to say not from wealthy parents but otherwise the brightest of the bright. Including myself just two of us were childless and single but of the remaining six, all were married – not a single divorce – and all had one or more children. They married by and large in their mid to late twenties, and thus to women just a little younger than themselves. I had known a few of the women – they had not been corporate-cubicle bitches or possessors of the feminst merit-badge – but ordinary, pleasant-enough, if unremarkable females – perhaps that is why I am single.

I should have asked my friends what their religious affiliations were (but they would have thought that a bit intrusive – I imagine – and so I have no idea): had I done so I imagine most would have identified as Anglican; happy to be hatched, matched and despatched, but otherwise not particularily of a religious bent – I doubt any have ever read the Bible or take it literally; that would be seen as very odd – though they would probably balk at your suggestion that they are atheists, even though the C0fE accepts or seems to accept all and every view.

I think the United States is a unique society when it comes to marriage. In Northern Europe people don’t marry but cohabit and remain together. In traditional societies, people marry but they don’t divorce, In America people marry and divorce and remarry and divorce and…

You see that traditional societies have high traditional values and low self-expression values. Modern societies have low traditional values and high self-expression values. But US has high traditional values and high self-expression values. So America is basically contradictory: she is very traditional and very modern, at the same time. This is why marriage is very valued and independence is valued too. So you need both and this is why the slogan “having it all” works so well.

So American woman, when they are single, they are satisfied with the independence but they want marriage. When they are married, they don’t need marriage (they are satiated), but they want independence. So, IMHO, this is the cause of the marriage-go-round.

imnobody
The basic female motivations are the same. “I want toasted ice and i don’t want it cold.” Just as a woman will go to church. Make it a churchian church to be worshipped as good by the churchian preacher. Not for the purpose of loving god.nope (I’ve already gone over this love thing and women before) It is purely for the title of christian woman. The whole churchian thing is to be comfortable. One thing as sure as the sun rise is female natural aversion to any kind of responsibility. Another status marker is the divorce. Nothing shows high valued pussy more than a record of divorce . I’m good enough to get a mans attention and I’m so good I had to leave him or more in keeping with the times kick him out because I wasn’t happy. He was a falure because I was awarded cash and prizes and now I’m a heroic single mom. (see churchianship above,words acually spoken by a so called christian leader)
But as you stated imnobody they want others committed to them at the same time the aversion to responsibility is just as strong. This is the hysteria of the mind of the feral woman. (they vote in laws BTW) perfectly normal. (toasted ice) With a different set of status markers that same woman will behave responsibly,behave lovingly, behave honorably, behave by the word of god. (not churchian) And miracle of miracles god will reach in give women inner peace cover the hysteria that is ever present. It is called enjoyng life as a civilized human being. The ironic thing is those qualities are natural for a man. (not for a defective man) For a man to enjoy the same peace he has to turn that off and follow the truth. As god said right after the apple incident (paraphrasing) the earth will no longer just bear fruit your ass will have to toil you don’t get relax muthafucka. Man handles his business god does the same thing he gets to enjoy the gina tingle of a woman with inner peace. I think this is where it is always the mans fault might come from. Also might be the where the power and effectiveness of “Game” comes from.
Sorry to get off track imnobody I just thought I would add a few ideas I had on the subject that reinforces the point you made
Merry Christmas all greyghost I feel really happy about christmas this year for no real special reason at all.

I am spending Christmas watching the BBC adaptation of ‘Pride and Prejudice’. It is so good, it is such a shame such a method of courtship is extinct now. A quote from one of the Bennett sisters that is also in the film that we can all sadly relate to: ‘Loss of virtue in a female is irretrievable.’

“Loss of virtue in a female is irretrievable; that one false step involves her in endless ruin; that her reputation is no less brittle than it is beautiful; and that she cannot be too much guarded in her behaviour towards the undeserving of the other sex.”

I think your thesis is mildly overstated. A back-of-the-envelope estimate for the probability of re-marriage for the divorcees between 46 and 65 is captured by this equation

1-[(1-r)^19] = p , which yields a .305 probability of remarriage during those year (presuming a divorce antecedent to age 46). A slice of the remainder are not discontented or understand their discontents to emanate from something other than their marital state.

Rod Dreher (and Leon Podles, while we are at it) might care to read some serious survey research on church attendance (published in such venues as Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion) rather than newspaper reports. Rates of religious observance do not differ much between men and women in countries where over all rates are at the high end of the spectrum (e.g. the United States). Even at the low end (e.g. Sweden), a third of those in attendance are male.

In the contemporary Catholic Church, it often does seem that the liturgy (and the music in particular) has been put together to please late-middle aged women of a somewhat sentimental bent (the market segment which likes non-comedy greeting cards, &c.). It is not, however, driving male parishioners away in disproportionate numbers, just irritating them (and, one suspects, everyone else not in the target demographic).

I cannot find an e-mail address for you on your blog, so I’ll rudely use a post comment to ask you a few questions. 😉 You are quite capable with statistics, so to you I turn for help…

My wife and I have been discussing “married Game” a bit recently. These conversations have generated a few demographic questions.

(a) How much is alimony a higher-income issue rather than a gender issue?

(Possibly this question should be reworded as “In which States does a man typically pay alimony even when his income is equal or less than his ex-wife’s?”)

(b) What percentage of divorced men actually want full custody but do not get this?

(Among our friends we hear stories of men who want greater partial custody. But all of the divorced men we know want “the weekends I have, plus a bit” not full custody.)

(c) How much do women unfairly mooch off social services more than men? Which laws make this possible?

I have added the word “unfairly” because women do gain more in a few okay ways. In particular, they spend more on health care because of childbirth, being more willing to visit the doctor for preventative care and annual exams, and the need for an office visit to test for cervical cancer. It seems unfair to begrudge women’s health care the expenses of delivering babies, or penalize women for being more willing to receive preventative care offered to them, or ding young women because unlike young men they cannot self-check at home for their most common cancer.

Thank you for all you write! Hopefully you have a few links handy and I am not asking you to invest much new time and energy to answer these questions.

I know it seems funny but it does work. Greyghost goes farther than I usually do, and I find a little bit of beta actually goes a long way. When she’s really into you, getting all clingy and whiny is sometimes the only way to lose a chick. It’s not attractive and they fall out of interest rapidly. (Clingy and whiny is not attractive on a woman, either, but that’s neither here nor there).

Another great way to lose a girl is to adopt the female friendzone script. “Continuing to have sex and date will ruin the great friendship we have”. You can see them get very flustered when you pull this, as they know (even better than you) what it really means.

“Another great way to lose a girl is to adopt the female friendzone script. “Continuing to have sex and date will ruin the great friendship we have”. You can see them get very flustered when you pull this, as they know (even better than you) what it really means.”

“they really knew how to do hypergamy way back in the day: task the father, uncles, and other male kin with vetting the potential hubbie.”

I’ve known more than one case where the brother, the father and the mother said “no” to the potential husband. The women never listened and every one of them got divorced. Sometimes it took three kids and 12 years, but they got divorced.

“If women were naturally hypergamous it wouldn’t take them so many iterations to try and get it right.”

I disagree with this mainly because society has taken away the consequences of hypergamy in females. If society didn’t take away the consequences it wouldn’t take em so long. They make mistakes because they can. When they cant you’ll see change.

Joshua
outstanding women don’t change haven’t changed and will not change. Society changed for feminism. A wonderful virtuous woman from the past in no less selfish childish than a cockolding slut from today. society and blue pill lies to men are what is different.

Every day, the Daily Mail or the Telegraph runs another story about a 30-something divorced schoolteacher getting busted for sex with underage boys. Are these women desperate or just lusting for young flesh?

I’d be very interested to know what y’all think about the effect of a female predator teacher on an adolescent male. It seems like a horrible violation of trust to me but my male friends have assured me that if the teacher is hot, any young guy would be thrilled and would not be pyschologically damaged by such abuse.

It’s difficult to look at this objectively: young testosterone soaked teenager gets to have sex with older hot teacher. A young guy would be thrilled — at first. Much as a younger girl is thrilled when an older, attractive man shows interest in her. But that thrill would give way to a skewed understanding of male-female relationships for a teenage boy. His brain isn’t fully formed. Intellectually he associates sex with emotional intimacy because he’s probably been told that’s how it is supposed to be. But deep down he cannot relate sex acts or intimacy or orgasm or ejaculation to anything other than physical gratification. His impressions of how to interact with girls, how to relate to girls and how to have sex will likely be distorted and malformed, because an older woman manipulated him and used him. His relationship skills will probably center with even more laser-like focus on the sex acts and sexual conduct, rather than sexual attraction.

And boys and men are more emotional than many women seem to believe. It is not that men are less emotional; it is that men don’t express those emotions in words as often, frequently because they don’t know how to express them verbally. Men feel and experience pain exquisitely; you just don’t know this because most men say nothing about it in public.

“I appreciate getting a glimpse into the perspective here. There is a kernel of truth to a lot of it but much of it strikes me as bizarre and woman hating. Being a jerk is not a gender issue. I realize many men have been screwed over by women but the opposite is also true. You know as much about women think as I do about how men think, apparently.”

I’m going to regret asking these questions. But, all for the greater good.

I’m interested to know what you think is “bizarre and woman hating” about anything you have read here.

Of what do you think the commenters here are ignorant about how women (in general) think and why?

I am sure many women have been screwed over by men. I am sure of this because I am bombarded with information, news, opinions, and articles about men screwing over women 24/7/365. It’s all I ever hear about: “Where are all the good men!” “I can’t find a husband!” “They just want to f*ck me; they don’t want to marry me!” “My ex is a deadbeat dad!” So what?

The effects are like those in cases of incest, and ripple out through the entire community. It’s not just the immediate victim who is hurt, though we did have a 14 y.o. boy who committed suicide because of one of these.

If these were post-menopausal battleaxes who couldn’t get laid if their lives depended
on it it would be one thing, but all the cases
I’ve looked at involve women who could get a way better sex partner in 2 minutes in any bar in town if that was what they wanted.

Which is why the punishment should be stricter than in the converse situations.

“Fascinated says:
December 26, 2012 at 2:05 pm
I’d be very interested to know what y’all think about *the effect of a female predator teacher on an adolescent male. It seems like a horrible violation of trust to me but my male friends have assured me that if the teacher is hot, any young guy would be thrilled and would not be pyschologically damaged by such abuse.”

Oh Kay – turn it around and let’s see… *the effect a male predator teacher on a adolescent female. It seems like a horrible violation of trust to me but my female friends have assured me that it he teacher is hot, any young girl would be thrilled and would not be psychologically damaged by such abuse…” – tell me how you ‘feeeel’ – to treat me like you do?

There are probably a lot of things going on with a female teacher sexing a male student: She probably is looking for the validation from having sex with a younger man, a hot young stud like the kind of guys she used to have sex with when she was younger. She is getting older, she knows it, and she wants the assurance that she’s “still got it”, that she can attract and sex a hot guy just like she used to. In a way it’s a raw assertion of power. A woman’s greatest source of power is in her sexuality.

Another thing she is probably doing is looking for excitement and drama. Many of the women doing this are married with children. If you’re not careful, the married with kids life can get very humdrum and mundane and even negatively stressful, especially if she’s married to a hapless beta (as most women are married to). One of the concepts we’ve seen in the last several years is the idea that women can do everything men can do — including have sex with multiple partners in serial fashion, with no or very few ill effects. Some women seem to be taking this to heart and simply selecting sex partners from some of the most willing recipients: hypertestosteronized late teenage men who can spring hard ons from handholding.

Thank you, deti, for your thoughtful response. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was just curious because of the opinion of some of my male friends, who see it differently than you and I.

I’ve been fortunate to be quite close to a number of men throughout my life, starting with my dear father, and I know first hand the emotional pain men experience. And I feel extremely fortunate to have had a husband who could open up in that regard and did not see it as a weakness. For our relationship it was one of the greatest strengths.

And why would she want to marry a man who seems to think so little of her entire gender?
Easy she doesn’t give a damn about what he thinks as long as she feels happy about what is going on at the time.

” post-menopausal battleaxes.” (couldn’t leave at at just post-menopausal, have to make it an insult.)

“Marriage is for raising children. If a woman is too old to have them, I don’t see why anyone would want to marry her unless she’s rich and he’s not.” Suggesting a woman’s worth is measured entirely by her ability to have children.
Ok, deti. When I used the words “bizarre” and “woman hating” I was speaking from the general feeling I’d gotten reading through the comments, in this thread and others. In attempting to answer your questions (thank you for your interest) I’ll quote from some of the comments on this thread. I am new to this whole perspective, as I believe I’ve mentioned and am interested in understanding it. The valid aspects of the conversations here are, I believe, weakened by comments like the following:

“Hypergamy doesn’t need a rational motivation, Martian. Gina tingle is good enough.” (Suggesting that women are not rational and are motivated only by their sexual desires. That may be the case in some instances but it is not a gender issue. There are plenty of men like that as well. Maybe you need to meet a better class of women.)

” A wonderful virtuous woman from the past in no less selfish childish than a cockolding slut from today.” (What is this obsession with controlling women’s sexuality? Control your own and watch the company you keep.)

“I’m already seeing this in political activism at the local level. The police community meetings are filled with bitter, angry, spinsters and crones, who demand kill-joy nit-picking laws be passed and strictly enforced.” (The writer does not specify what kind of laws these older women want passed, so I am unable to judge the laws based on their merit, but to characterize older women as “bitter, angry… nit-picking… killjoy”(s) is typical language used to denigrate older women.)

“Here’s a simple yet hard work way to instill the groundwork. Home school them and don’t send them to college. Nip that hamster in the bud early on.” (Another similarity to the Taliban.)

“1. Any woman over 22 not married is to be assumed a slut. Game that pussy and use it up. get rid of her by acting like you have fallen in love with her.”

“2. Any woman that is a single mom through divorce or through not having any idea fucking all kind of dudes while single and unmarried will results in getting knocked the hell up or on purpose is onlt good for sex until you get tired of her. If techniques of resingling used in rule one are effective you made a right choice. If those techniques don’t work try this. ” your second duaghter is very beautiful, do you think she would be interested in dating a guy like me?””

(The above two quotes speak for themselves. Or perhaps you think that is perfectly fine, deti?)

“Oh, that is way too generous to her. ‘Fascinated’ simply does not understand how women think. We know a lot more about how women think than she does, as is typically the case with femtrolls who have nothing but 3 types of shaming language to spew. Women are no more capable of discussing female psychology, than a child is capable of writing a textbook on child psychology.” (The lack of logic in this quote is pretty astounding. Assuming that men know more about how women think and women couldn’t possibly know as much… I wonder if most of you men really think we are that ignorant? That reeks of woman hating to me.)

I have recieved some less than respectful responses when I have “dared” to comment and a couple virtual pats on the head and “run along, little girl, this is way beyond your ability to understand.” You may wonder why I would spend time here. Dalrock is a good writer and touches on topics with which I am, well, fascinated.

deti, I assume my response was too long, as the first part of it did not post. I wanted to thank you for your interest in my perspective and explain my approach to answering you… which is to say that, in my comment mentioning “bizarre” and “woman hating” I was responding to the general feeling I have at times gotten from reading through these threads. So I thought I would just pull out a few quotes from this thread.

“Assuming that men know more about how women think and women couldn’t possibly know as much… I wonder if most of you men really think we are that ignorant? That reeks of woman hating to me.)”

You can understand the true nature of woman’s psychology and their sexuality but you won’t (if you are like the vast majority of women) because you really don’t want to. Your mind will not let you accept it.

Some questions for you?

What do you find attractive in a man? What qualities are you looking for in a boyfriend or husband?

Oh, sorry, deti. Realizing I did not respond to question number two. I don’t remember saying that I think the men on here are ignorant. If I am wrong I trust you will point that out to me. I just feel that women ARE as intelligent as men and that women understand both male, female and child pyschology as well as men. (That was in response to a comment that suggested that men in general know more about female psychology than I do. Sheesh.)

Home schooling is better than many public schools and colleges are merely indoctrination centers and cover for the hook-up scene, not fit for learning. You do not get to be the moral orbiter here, take that chip off your shoulder. Studying at university is not needed to teach a woman to be a mother or wife. It merely teaches her to be a femcunt and a whore.

Modern women are a nightmare! If you don’t like the frank talk here about how we view women, take a hike sister. Go join a Jizzabel rally or some other half-cooked femcunt ideal like a SlutWalk.

@Fascinated, there is a pretty large body of anecdotal evidence supporting the assertion that women don’t understand their attraction triggers as well as they think that they do. The classic example is women claiming to want ABC characteristics in a man while continually bypassing men with ABC characteristics and dating men with XYZ characteristics. This then gives rise to the assertion that women don’t really understand their attraction triggers nearly as well as they think that they do.

Undoubtedly men have their blind spots too, but it’s not generally in what they find attractive in a woman.

Dalrock has written elsewhere that if you rephrase what women say they are looking for in a man like this “I’m looking for ABC [in men I already find attractive].” then you get a more honest statement. This of course is not too dissimilar to Chris Rock’s comedy bit that you can append “Want some dick?” to the end of the things men say and do to attractive women to get a more accurate statement of their intentions.

“You can understand the true nature of woman’s psychology and their sexuality but you won’t (if you are like the vast majority of women) because you really don’t want to. Your mind will not let you accept it.”

FuriousFerret… why would I be here I I did not wish to increase my understanding? The above is an insult to my intelligence.

IF I was looking, (I am widowed and am involved in a very satisfactory LTR) he would be what my sweetheart is. Fun, funny, enjoys dancing, wrestling (sometimes he let’s me win… what you might call a win, win, win situation). In touch with his inner child, he will be silly with me. He takes care of himself phyically, spirtually and intellectually, and appreciates that I do as well. He will spot me with a heavy bar bell and make chicken soup when I am sick. Cooking together, alternating chef and prep cook, is one of our favorite activities. We pretty much share housework and maintenance, although he refuses to wear my french maid outfit. (Maybe for my birthday, he says… but that will require me wearing my birthday suit… he drives a hard bargain and an old truck.) We love playing music together, or just listening to the other. He enjoys sex as much as I do. He does not consider me inferior to him. He appreciates all the little things I do for him and I appreciate it when he shows me, wowie, zowie, just how much. We play together but we also enjoy our time apart and getting together with the “girls” (um, me) or the “boys,” (uh, him.) When we have disagreements, we may have heated discussions but we know that we will work through it and be stronger for it. Are there downsides? Yes, of course. But I have an attitude of gratitude and focus on the positive. That keeps me plenty busy. I am so thankful to have him in my life.

What you’re reading is a large amount of pushback against what we know to be a complete war against men.

Men have been used, lied to, manipulated and abused by their society.

Most of the men you are seeing comment here have learned (some the easy way, most the hard way) that what we were taught about intersexual relationships was completely 100% wrong. Our failures were a result of false instruction from people who said they knew what they were talking about but in fact had absolutely NO idea what they were talking about. We’ve learned women aren’t all what they advertise themselves to be and that they don’t like what we were told they like. Some are frustrated. Some are pissed as hell. Some are depressed. Some have finally accepted it.

Women in general don’t display the same amount or depth of insight into their own behaviors that men do. I think it is generally because feelings and emotions motivate female behaviors. This is the source of the admonition to “ignore what women say. If you want to know her, watch what she does.” This is also why when a woman is asked why she did something or believes something, the response is usually a variation of “because it feels right” or “that’s how I feel”.

Most of us on this and other manosphere boards were told that women are attracted to industriousness, loyalty, fidelity, and provider ability, i.e., “you have a job, you’re a catch for a woman.” No. Women are attracted to confidence and dominance. This is why we often see women SAY they like Billy Beta, but then inexplicably sleep with Alpha McGorgeous (the smooth player), Harley McBadboy (the motorcycle-riding, brooding, dangerous bad boy) or Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer (the perpetually broke, aimless, unemployed local garage band member). These men have confidence in spades (they don’t give a shit what anyone thinks of them) and dominance (through their personalities or positions they influence social situations).

Most of us were told that women aren’t really all that into sex. This is also false. Women are into sex as long as the men they have sex with are sufficiently attractive. The problem is that there is a small number of those men, and 80% of the women want to have sex with, relationships with, and marriage to, them, and only them.

Some of the men were on the receiving end of frivolous divorces from wives after a decade or two of marriage. One day his wife said “I’m not happy, I don’t love you, and I’m divorcing you”. this after he had done everything he was told: He got and kept a job, he did his chores, he took care of her and her kids, he did everything she asked him to do. He is blindsided, he loses more than half his income, does not see his children but twice a month, and is now a wage slave to an ex-wife.

Why is it we always get these widowed or frivorced women nagging us about how perfect their newly found mate is and how he oh-so respects and loves them in their old haggard age? Are they trying to convince us or themselves?

News flash, fascinated whore-slut, no one gives a fuck. If it’s so great, go and enjoy it and leave this nasty website. Don’t you know, only women haters here?

Unicorn Hunter said: “there is a pretty large body of anecdotal evidence supporting the assertion that women don’t understand their attraction triggers as well as they think that they do.”

He is right. This is because in general, women tend not to think critically about what they or others do, or why they do it. They tend not to engage in self-critical analysis. They don’t look for patterns in their behaviors in order to keep the productive behaviors and jettison the bad ones. They don’t usually observe others’ mistakes in order to keep from repeating them in their own lives.

This is especially true when it comes to sex, love and attraction to men. Instead of thinking, they resort to their emotions and feelings. Instead of considering “is he a good man? is he good for me? Is he right for me? Can I make this work out?” she resorts immediately to “how does he make me feel? how do I feel around him? Do I like him? Does this feel right?” She doesn’t look for red flags or patterns in her own conduct. She instead proceeds without thinking and lets her emotions and feelings (fear, apprehension, horniness, desperation, love, lust, envy) determine who her sex partners are.

You are a feminist. You might not think you are, but you are. All women are feminists, to some degree.

Don’t think so?

Go up to a woman and suggest that she isn’t as suited for long work hours and weeks away from home as a typical man is. See what reaction you get.

Go up to any woman and suggest that she isn’t as physically strong as a typical man is. See what reaction you get. (Even though science shows that a flabby, fat, out of shape man is still stronger than a fit, physically conditioned woman, and he can easily overpower her.)

That’s the same bullshit list every woman gives and 9 out of 10 times it isn’t true in the least. The fact is you can throw that list out the window and I can predict with great certainty what kind of men you preferred in your prime. Maybe your tastes have changed because you’re older now and can’t get a high value man.

You want a the same man that every woman wants. A man of high status that DOES view you as an inferior. You want a guy that says ‘No’ and doesn’t give a flying fuck about what you want. In other words a strong alpha who dominates the relationship and society at large. You will hamster away any other quality and choose this man every day of the week and twice on sunday because what you think you want in your frontal lobe is at total war with the instinctal hindbrain.

So the way that a man should act towards a woman is considered ‘sexist’ today. In fact you have to be more ‘sexist’ in the modern environment because women have no respect for a man simply being a male. Being a man has no status unless you are alpha. So the more you treat a woman like dirt the more she loves you for it because she craves domination and leadership. I know it sounds bad but it’s the truth.

My situation is a good case in point. Whilst one of my exes has remarried, the other one remains husbandless and childless at 37, and she is now only starting to complain that men don’t look at her on her blog, and that she can’t find a husband. Myself, I have a child but have also been going from woman to woman for the past couple of years, some of them much younger than myself. My prospects for remarriage are there, but having been burnt pretty badly, I find myself hesitant at the thoight of it. Thus, I am somewhat surprised at the rate of remarriage amongst divorced men, I’d have thought one rogering at the hands of a wife would have been enoigh.

Thank you for your comments and questions. Sorry if it seemed like I dropped of the face of the earth, (yes, thanks in advance, I am aware that is exactly what some of you were hoping!) but it’s a busy time of year and we have received the best snow of the season and had time to enjoy it.

@ furiousferret:

Oh, so my list of qualities is ridiculous, is it? I was asked what attracted me to my man. Would you prefer me to run him down? No, thank you. Perhaps, after reading through these comments, I was looking at our relationship through rose colored glasses and feeling thankful not to be with someone who tells me what I want and what I do or don’t “give a flying fuck about.” Not sure how that “the more you treat a woman like dirt” thing is working out for you but from your tone I would guess not so much.

@ deti:

I never said I was not a feminist, though I think you and I have different definitions and, as I contemplate the new perspectives I am gaining in the manosphere and the PUA “community,” that may be evolving.) Having worked my share of 12 and 16 hour days when it was necessary, and gone through three pregnacies, I have a different view of what women are capable of. Obviously women are not as physically strong as men and I’m sure any woman that I tried to suggest that to would look at me like I am crazy. (Besides, what would be the fun in that?)

“… in general, women tend not to think critically about what they or others do…” and “This is especially true when it comes to sex, love and attraction…” Just to respond to a bit of this comment. (apologies…. I don’t have lots and lots of time here.) Again, I do not see women as having a corner on this market.

“Why is it we always get these widowed or frivorced women nagging us about how perfect their newly found mate is and how he oh-so respects and loves them in their old haggard age? Are they trying to convince us or themselves?

News flash, fascinated whore-slut, no one gives a fuck. If it’s so great, go and enjoy it and leave this nasty website. Don’t you know, only women haters here?”

To Dalrock’s credit, he has stated that he feels he may learn as much or more from people who see things differently from him, so, until I hear differently from him I will just remind you that minds are like parachutes – they only function when they’re open.

We haven’t gotten married because we do not think that is in our best interest. We are both widowed, we both have (mostly) grown children, and complicated estate issues. We are happy with the way things are.

Thank you for sharing your perspective regarding the pushback here. Happy New Year to you all, especially you, Feminist Hater, with love from your favorite femcunt.

You’re right that women haven’t cornered the market on lack of insight into why they do what they do; and that some men are the same way. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. NAWALT and all that.

But in all seriousness: I know you probably won’t do this, but I’d suggest that you think about what’s been said here. Men have something to shout about. The situation in the current SMP is not all men’s fault. It’s mostly women’s fault. What you are reading about here is a direct response to women’s conduct. And with all respect, please spare us the “I’m not like that” response. Perhaps you’re not like that, but enough women ARE like that to make the generalization true.

Another note. Most people in the US are probably not qualified to judge American women. Why? Because they have had no contact with sane women, and have no idea just how messed up AW really are.

I could write a book about the differences, and probably have on men’s message boards.

Just one example is the fact that the AVERAGE woman in the US at her first marriage has had 11 lovers. 11! They are hardened, and the more lovers the harder it is to stay married, and to be a loving wife.

Women who have had that many lovers develop a hardened look, called by some “The Thousand Cock Stare.”

Women in other countries usually aren’t that way. I have told men I can tell an American woman from a Mexican women 30 feet away by the angry look on the face of the AW.

I tell Mexican men who are going to work in the US to not ever marry an AW. I tell them if you want that pain (and then I pantomime holding a pistol to my head and pulling.) Men who have lived their laugh and agree with me.

I frankly don’t care what fascinated thinks. I know what I know. By the way, married 37+ years to a Mexican woman, and living here get hit on by 20 year olds. And, it’s not for papers or money either, which is the knee jerk response of AW.

Results: The divorce rate among adults ages 50 and older doubled between 1990 and 2010. Roughly 1 in 4 divorces in 2010 occurred to persons ages 50 and older. Demographic characteristics, economic resources, and the marital biography were associated with the risk of divorce in 2010. The rate of divorce was 2.5 times higher for those in remarriages versus first marriages while the divorce rate declined as marital duration rose.

Implications: The traditional focus of gerontological research on widowhood must be expanded to include divorce as another form of marital dissolution. Over 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2010, but little is known about the predictors and consequences of
divorces that occur during middle and later life.

I’m not going to dispute your stats. I only need to look around to see a lot more single old ladies than single bachelors. But it reminds me of what my mom said when my father died at the age of sixty, and we encouraged her to date. “Why should I cater to another old man?” And she proceeded, as many widows do, to enjoy the last twenty years of her life doing exactly what she damn well pleased.

One thing that I never see addressed is the impact of lifetime alimony in the remarriage rates. It is common in the US for a divorce decree and/or settlement to include a long term alimony component. However, the alimony award is often reduced or eliminated in cases where the woman remarries. Therefore, once again, there is a financial benefit when the woman does not remarry. I wonder if it matters?

First, 2006 census data shows men 45+ are only 7% more likely to remarry than women. Women are usually the ones who initiated the divorce and 50%+ say they have no interest in ever remarrying. The New York Times did a study on this trend way back in 1992 and it has been growing ever since. An AARP (2006?) study found that most women in their 50s were in long term relationships and preferred cohabitation or keeping their home and independence and just dating.

Second, according to census data from 2006:

Odds a man marrying a women 5-9 yrs younger: about 10%
Odds of a man marrying a woman 10+ yrs younger: about 5%

Let’s not forget the financial incentive. In a large percentage of divorces, the man has to pay alimony. That payment is usually conditioned on the woman staying single; it stops if she remarries. I’m sure that variable enters into the equation somehow, further confirming the notion that women are more interested in money than love and commitment.

I can’t believe people use the word “spinster” in this age. I also can’t believe that people say that it is a disaster if women don’t get remarried. I was 52 when I got divorced after 25 years of marriage. I don’t plan to get remarried and I’ve never been happier or more fulfilled in my life.

I was 52 when I got divorced after 25 years of marriage. I don’t plan to get remarried and I’ve never been happier or more fulfilled in my life.

Of course you are never getting remarried and of course you’ve never been happier. You have the house (that he paid for) and the court ordered alimony. You have a financial DISincentive to remarry. You probably divorced him simply because you were unhaaaaapy, as if that was a good enough reason.

I will pray for you, for what you just did to your husband. May God have mercy on your soul.

“11 “lovers”. And you KNOW that’s under reported if women are embarrassed to tell thier gynocologist thier true partner counts. As Dalrock pointed out on another the thread.”

Agreed. Women are notorious for not counting many of their partners, up until they’re hooked up to a polygraph. I like this rule for how to get a close approximation of a woman’s REAL “N”:

Add 3 to her admitted N, then double. So, if a woman ADMITS to two, that calculates out to (2+3) x 2 = 10. 6 becomes 18, while 12 become… [heaving sounds in background].
============================================================

Donna says:
October 12, 2014 at 9:45 pm

” can’t believe people use the word “spinster” in this age.”

That’s because like other words for people some commonly find uncomfortable: bastard, slut, thief, idler, moron, unmarriageable — there are such people those words describe aptly.

” I also can’t believe that people say that it is a disaster if women don’t get remarried. I was 52 when I got divorced after 25 years of marriage. I don’t plan to get remarried and I’ve never been happier or more fulfilled in my life.”

Take away the money any MAN earned that you’re using to feed, clothe, house, transport, and amuse yourself (yes, that includes most of Social Security/Medicare), and let’s see just how little you need men. Meanwhile, though you undoubtedly subsist mostly or completely on money men earned, you give them nothing, no comfort, no inspiration, no domestic duties. Where I come from, we call that a leech, a parasite.

The title of this is confusing — It sounds as though the guy who wrote this all came from an incredibly backward perspective. It isn’t bad news for women that they aren’t remarrying — it is THEIR CHOICE to not get duped into white slavery again! MEN, on the other hand, still need marriage to “have it all”, while marriage is still more and more (AND MORE) of a burden for women. THAT is why women are opting out of marriage.
This fellow sounds like a little kid who hasn’t quite figured out how “logic” works. Just perusing his bass ackwards stances in other posts here, I can see he would probably purposely switch ANY facts he could to support his false premise that women “need” or “want” marriage more than vice versa.

Quite right. I for one have no wish to force any woman into white slavery or force her to have it all. When they ask me with tears in their eyes and a quivering lip, as to how I feel about them, I merely reply that marriage is slavery and it would be wrong for me to facilitate their oppression. Strangely this produces even more tears. I explain that I appreciate women for their intellectual smarts and glittering career as well as any benefit that they might consent to provide (consent being sexy). I can only assume that those women who fill the pages of O.K.Cupid searching for a husband are suffering from false consciousness in their desire (usually in their mid to late thirties) to find Mr Right when what they really need if they were thinking correctly is Mr Right Now.

Quite right. I for one have no wish to force any woman into white slavery or force her to have it all. When they ask me with tears in their eyes and a quivering lip, as to how I feel about them, I merely reply that marriage is slavery and it would be wrong for me to facilitate their oppression. Strangely this produces even more tears. I explain that I appreciate women for their intellectual smarts and glittering career as well as any benefit that they might consent to provide (consent being sexy). I can only assume that those women who fill the pages of O.K.Cupid searching for a husband are suffering from false consciousness in their desire (usually in their mid to late thirties) to find Mr Right when what they really need if they were thinking correctly is Mr Right Now.

Who does this guy think he is?

I know, right?! Just when these divorcees have escaped living the life of chattel for one evil white man; they go right back to seeking romance with another one of these evil doers! Someone needs to stop this now, call the fembrigade!

I was speaking to that Mrs Clooney only the other day. What, I asked, exactly, did you see in the handsome, charming, millionaire actor with political ambitions and probably a boyfriend that made you forsake twenty years or more of being a strong independent woman and go and marry him before you imminently hit the wall?

It sounds as though the guy who wrote this all came from an incredibly backward perspective…it is THEIR CHOICE to not get duped into white slavery again!

So the biblical is backwards? So then it must follow that we have a new and better not-backwards perspective.

Just understand fellas that even though she is spending that hard earned money you’ve made, and even though many of you are doing “your fair share” of the house work and finishing that honey do list before she gets home as well as pretty much doing what ever else she wants, it’s slavery for her.

A “married” woman in the US can take a man’s home and more than half of his finances for no reason at all. She can steal his kids with the full force of the law behind her. But to a feminist this is also slavery for women.

Of course when the man won’t marry the woman, this is also unfair for the woman according to feminists.

Upside down and backwards, inside out and twisted beyond recognition, this is the feminist perspective as in relation to common sense and reason.

This fellow sounds like a little kid who hasn’t quite figured out how “logic” works.

Logic? As understood by the person who commented on April 9 at 3:38 pm? LOL

Sure as heck am glad that you’re off your batshit rocker, lol. If the world was like you claim, it would be WOMEN committing suicide en masse, not men. But by all means, do get back to me when that switches.

Umm, right back at ya actually! The fact that men are more interested in marrying and re-marrying (and re-marrying again!) seems to escape you. Women are not pursuing marriage as much as men, and in fact they pursue RE-marriage substantially less. Men are keeping the marriage industry alive. Well, men and gays. Western women have opted the fuck out of it for the most part, so much so that Western men have had to start saving up cash for YEARS to afford a mail-order bride from other countries. Well, they’re called eBrides now, but still.

What small percentage of Western women who do still try marriage out, they are marrying divorced men (before they turn around and divorce those divorced men). Divorced men commit the highest rates of suicide let’s not forget. That is a tragedy. It comes as little surprise, mind you, as women would surely be committing the majority of divorces were we the ones getting dumped 75% of the time, or if we were forced to pay years’ and years’ worth of salaries just to purchase a groom, for however short a time.

So, really — DO get back to me when that switches. Because until then, it’s just downright laughable trying to claim that women are unhappy about their CHOICE to remain unmarried.

The fact that men are more interested in marrying and re-marrying (and re-marrying again!) seems to escape you.

And you know this how?

Women are not pursuing marriage as much as men

Not when they are young, but when they see the wall coming they usually get a sudden urge to reproduce. By then their options are limited compared to when they were younger. But you are correct in that there is usually some fool who will sign up for the slaughter.

Men are keeping the marriage industry alive.

The “marriage” industry is dying. Women are waiting too long, and men are opting out. No one is keeping it alive.

It comes as little surprise, mind you, as women would surely be committing the majority of divorces were we the ones getting dumped 75% of the time…

Women ARE the ones frivorcing 75% of the time. Did you mean to say they would be committing the majority of suicides if men were leaving them? If so, then once again you are wrong. Most women are seeped in solipsism and few would try to off themselves even then.

Because until then, it’s just downright laughable trying to claim that women are unhappy about their CHOICE to remain unmarried

They kind of women you are talking about (most western girls like yourself) are unhappy period. That’s because they want what they can’t have, and when they get what they want it’s never enough. Not that I place any stock in happiness as it comes and goes, but women who marry young and stay married are much happier than man hating harpies. They know it and you know it, even if you never admit it.

I gather you are not a fan of history or the Bible. Things are changing, but for the worse not the better, and they aren’t going back to the way they were (at least not in this country). In your ignorance you probably think that is a good thing, but it isn’t. Rome once had a problem similar to the one we have now. It didn’t work out well for them, and it hasn’t for us either. It only gets worse from here.

Happy people? Wtf would you know about us?? LOL, look where you are — someplace where most happy people wouldn’t even know exists!

The D, if straight guys are now suddenly using that term, is at m disposal any time I wish. And that’s just the husband’s. He’s even told me (as a test, I hope) that I should snag some of the gym manager’s D if it’d mean the family could get a discount!

Nope, nope, and nope, doll. The younger a female is when she marries, the higher the incidence of divorce WILL BE. Getting married younger is foolish, but young people technically are fools by definition, so that’s what we’re always going to get.

People who wait until they have graduated and earned their degree(s) are the ones who divorce substantially less. This “wall” you speak of is a laugh shared only by bitter people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Women are currently giving birth at the lowest rate in recent history, getting pregnant at the lowest rate in recent history, and are aborting at the lowest rate in recent history. Quite to the chagrin of men who keep on tryin’ to claim otherwise. Go hang out in an IVF lobby for an afternoon. You’ll see how misled you’ve allowed other men to do, doll.

As for the Wholly BuyBull, who the hell is a fan of that? You mean like a fan of Shakespeare or fan of Stephen King? In that case, sure I’m a fan. It’s the all-time number one book in fiction, just because most bought copies are tucked away in motel rooms means nothing.

(And you’re accidentally correct about Amurikkka’s decline. Never been a better time for women to extricate themselves from duh paytreearky, eh? I don’t know what men are going to do with the decline, since American men are declining at even faster rates than the country, but women are doing OK, thanks for your concern. Without so many hubbies and kids to slave over, women will finally have enough time for themselves, as it should be. Hallelujah, we’re makin’ it out of slavery and into Duh Promised Land!)

More than you do about yourselves. A feminist is a feminist. The blind following the blind.

look where you are

Where is that exactly? In a neat little box labeled sexist you learned about in one of our not so pristine indoctrination centers? Sadly, it’s you who doesn’t know where YOU are or what you are for that matter.

Most of the folks who comment here can predict what you are going to write before you write it. Read through the comments in the posts on this site. You will find that what you have to say has been said and refuted many times over, and maybe you’ll learn something useful for a change.

I also think you would benefit immensely from a trip to the kitchen for an adventure in sammich making, but that’s just me. Well, me and Farm Boy. Off you go.

This “wall” you speak of is a laugh shared only by bitter people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Women are currently giving birth at the lowest rate in recent history, getting pregnant at the lowest rate in recent history, and are aborting at the lowest rate in recent history.

You do realize that when women wait till they’re in their 30s to have kids they will have fewer kids right? Have you read the studies and stats posted on this site? Where are yours?

LOL … you said patriarchy. You ARE dyed in the wool. Where’s my sammich?

Just because it’s been refuted doesn’t mean it has been done soundly. Your sister sites, the White Power blogs, also “refute” how Blacks are not fully human, and your other sister sites for gay-bashing “refute” that gays are worthy of breathing straight people’s air. I *have* read the comments here. It’s chilling how identical you guys keep it, despite posting it across the manosphere, the heterosphere, and the anglosphere.

You people who aren’t even intelligent enough to know the mechanics of sammich-making… let alone sammich-spelling… you’re just enjoying the sulfur-rich, fart-filled echo chamber here. If I had to guess, I’d say that *some of you* even halfway believe the shit you fart back and forth. But then I shake it off and remember it’s cruel to think of people being that stupid and I comfort myself with how you guys just haven’t developed a smart enough sense of humor yet… you’re not stupid enough to believe this laughable nonsense… you’re just trying to make jokes… in between failing at spelling and/or making sammiches…

Oh, and I’m not a feminist. Well, not since the Impotenti effectively bullied the definition into something unrecognizable. (The Impotenti, as I’m sure you know is just like the Illuminati, but their arguments are impotent, powerless, unfounded, limp, weak, well, you get the picture.)

LOL … Right on script. Any one who doesn’t participate in the PC religion of feminism is automatically lumped in with all other non-PC types.

The religion of PC:
If a fella thinks abortion is murder, he’s a sexist. If he thinks sodomy is a sin, he’s a homophobe. If he disagrees with our current president, he’s a racist. If he believe’s the Bible is true, he’s a bigot. Well by your standards any Bible believing Christian is a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot. I wear the badge with honor.

You people who aren’t even intelligent enough to know the mechanics of sammich-making… let alone sammich-spelling

Now wait one minute! I KNOW I spelled sammich correctly. And why do I need to know the mechanics of sammich making? That’s for women.

Oh, and I’m not a feminist.

LOL … Of course you are. What else do you call someone who thinks women should have privileges without responsibility and has no morals.

I hate Barack Obama. Well, I suspect he might be a good husband and father, maybe, but I hate him as any sort of leader/politician. So, your “LOL” came out of your ass again. I’m not politically correct by a long shot. If I were downing shots for every feeble, incorrect little guess you tried to make, I’d have been barfing up booze long ago. <—- You haven't guessed correctly yet is what I'm saying. Sodomy IS a sin, regardless of who's receiving. Oral sex is a sin too, so what? Eating milk and meat is equally a sin. Shall we recount all 600+ "sins"? <—- That was a rhetorical question. It is not meant to be answered.

I'm still not a feminist, although feminists do have higher opinions of men than most manospherian men do*… And ''[w]hat else do you call someone who thinks women should have privileges without responsibility and has no morals''… Not feminist… but other than "not feminist", I wouldn't know. Because I don't believe what you keep… trying… incorrectly… to tell me I believe.

*Feminists believe all people are important enough to now how to feed themselves, whereas [some] men feel they'll never be good enough to make a sammich 😦 They go straight from mommy sammiches to oh, nevermind. I guess mommy was pretty much the only one who was going to make anyone a sammich.

To answer your question — I assure you, I am not your mommy — ergo I would not have the first clue where your sammich is. But if I had to take a wild guess… I’d say all over the front of your shirt and maybe a little on the floor to the left and right of you. Along with yesterday’s sammich, and the one before that, ad infinitum.

Apparently athveg is a “right wing” feminist who denies being a feminist while simultaneously defending the “good name” of feminism.

Feminism is arguably the largest contributor to the 56 million plus murdered unborn babies in the US alone, to 50% divorce rates, to the normalization of government supported baby mommas, to 40% of babies born out of wedlock rates, for completely draconian DV laws such as VAWA, for rape hysteria at university indoctrination centers, for corrupt family courts, and for children growing up without fathers. Children who grow up without their fathers are the the most likely to go to prison, join gangs, do drugs, become prostitutes, and commit suicide. Anyone who would try to defend feminism or the actions of feminists is seriously demented or at the very least living in an indoctrinated bubble (but I repeat myself).

You can tell a female feminist by the way she reacts to the mention of sammiches. It seems to get them every time.

It is astounding how much traffic that throw-away post from four years ago still gets. If you look on the right hand side of the blog you will see that it is still in the top posts, as it perpetually is.

Among people with a college education, marriage rates are holding up, perhaps even slightly increasing; the decrease in marriage rates is among people without college education.

As I understand it marriage rates are dropping for all categories, only less so for college grads as the college grad rates began to decline slightly after 2000. Also, if it is true that more women and fewer men are graduating college and that women usually marry up, how are there going to continue to be marriages between college grads at the same rates as before?

There is a book about this: Our Kids by Robert Putnam. It was published a couple months ago, and has been widely and positively reviewed.

You are surely right that if more women than men graduate from college, then given hypergamy, marriage rates for college women cannot continue to be high. The end of the high marriage rates for college graduates is probably a long way away, though, because women can marry men substantially older than themselves. The supply of older men gets replenished, too, due to divorce.

I strongly suspect that hypergamy also has something to do with the low marriage rates for non-graduates.